Search for: "Price v. Myers"
Results 121 - 140
of 157
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Feb 2010, 7:19 pm
In U.S. v. [read post]
22 Dec 2009, 8:43 am
We might learn more about the Court of Appeal's views on this from Pfizer v. [read post]
November 30, 2009 – Environmental Law Settlements, Decisions, Regulatory Actions and Lawsuit Filings
30 Nov 2009, 9:25 am
Click Here California Appeals Court Affirms Lower Court Holding in Goodrich v. [read post]
13 Nov 2009, 4:29 am
My thought: pursue the misuse arguments Posner offered in Ty v. [read post]
10 Nov 2009, 2:01 am
Regina (Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceuticals Ltd) v National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence [2009] EWHC 2722 (Admin); [2009] WLR (D) 318 "Art 6 of Council Directive 89/105/EEC relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (OJ L40) ('the [...] [read post]
31 Oct 2009, 4:06 pm
October 31, 2009 – A summary review of environmental law settlements, decisions, regulatory actions and lawsuits filed during the past week. [read post]
28 Sep 2009, 1:31 am
Finally, the Reese court invoked “important policy concerns” that weighed against allowing common-law claims asserting liability for failure to recall a legally-marketed product: Because the cost of locating, recalling, and replacing mass-marketed products can be enormous and will likely be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, the recall power should not be exercised without extensive consideration of its economic impact. [read post]
28 Sep 2009, 1:31 am
Finally, the Reese court invoked “important policy concerns” that weighed against allowing common-law claims asserting liability for failure to recall a legally-marketed product: Because the cost of locating, recalling, and replacing mass-marketed products can be enormous and will likely be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, the recall power should not be exercised without extensive consideration of its economic impact. [read post]
28 Sep 2009, 1:31 am
Finally, the Reese court invoked “important policy concerns” that weighed against allowing common-law claims asserting liability for failure to recall a legally-marketed product: Because the cost of locating, recalling, and replacing mass-marketed products can be enormous and will likely be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, the recall power should not be exercised without extensive consideration of its economic impact. [read post]
24 Sep 2009, 5:09 am
See also Cupek v. [read post]
21 Sep 2009, 7:53 am
In Van Cleef & Arpels Logistics, S.A. v. [read post]
17 Sep 2009, 10:01 pm
Several years ago, I published a list of state-specific Family Law blogs. [read post]
22 Jun 2009, 12:24 pm
Viktor V. [read post]
8 May 2009, 11:16 am
That would be last month's decision in Myers-Armstrong v. [read post]
8 May 2009, 12:10 am
We're pleased by the dismissal of Myers-Armstrong v. [read post]
2 Jan 2009, 4:57 am
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Helen deThomas, Senior Policy Analyst, US-VISIT, Department of Homeland Security, 1616 Fort Myer Drive, 18th Floor, Arlington, Virginia 22209, (202) 298-5200. [read post]
3 Nov 2008, 11:02 am
Myers v. [read post]
19 Sep 2008, 6:00 pm
: (Techdirt), (Techdirt), Pharma & Biotech Pharma & Biotech - General Biotech patent law: eleven key pending cases and future developments to watch: (Hal Wegner), (PatentDocs) Study by The Innovation Group highlights damaging intellectual property has been to biotech: (Techdirt), Drug regulatory agencies collaborate on counterfeits, new medical products: (Intellectual Property Watch), Canada: Health Canada releases summary report on industry consultations regarding… [read post]
2 Sep 2008, 5:23 pm
By Eric Goldman eBay, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Aug 2008, 1:23 am
You can separately subscribe to the IP Thinktank Global week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com] Highlights this week included: DRM for streaming music dies a quiet death: (Electronic Frontier Foundation), (Techdirt) CAFC decides Apotex and Impax infringed AstraZeneca’s Prilosec patents: (Law360), (Patent Prospector), (Patent Docs), (GenericsWeb), CAFC upholds lower court’s decision finding USPTO was within its rights to subject a Cooper patent to… [read post]
